[martyup]

*Also, when did the slippery slope stop being a fallacy that every intelligent person was loathe to invoke?

According to Wikipedia:

"The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific rule or course of action is likely to result in unintended consequences and that these "unintended consequences" are undesirable (and, typically, worse than either inaction or another course of remediation). This criticism is a consequentialist criticism - interested in consequences or outcomes or results of a course of action - and does not impugn the character or intentions of the one(s) offering the "slippery slope" argument(s), the basis or bases or concerns underlying the offering of the arguments against a rule or course of action, nor the legitimacy of arguing against any specific rule or course of action."

It's only a fallacy is there is no basis to assume that the action is UNLIKELY to result in bad unintended consequences.  This decision comes on the heels of other government actions tending to target citizens for their religious and/or political beliefs (e.g., the IRS targeting of conservative groups).  Many times the government action is taken in the name of some obscure law or regulation.  If you heard Harry Reid crowing about this decision on the floor of the Senate, you would understand the strong desire of some in government to walk all over the Constitution in order to right perceived wrongs in American culture.  I contend that there is a strong basis to assume that further more onerous infringements on First Amendment rights will follow this government agency ruling.

[martyup]

*Also, when did the slippery slope stop being a fallacy that every intelligent person was loathe to invoke?

According to Wikipedia:

"The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific rule or course of action is likely to result in unintended consequences and that these "unintended consequences" are undesirable (and, typically, worse than either inaction or another course of remediation). This criticism is a consequentialist criticism - interested in consequences or outcomes or results of a course of action - and does not impugn the character or intentions of the one(s) offering the "slippery slope" argument(s), the basis or bases or concerns underlying the offering of the arguments against a rule or course of action, nor the legitimacy of arguing against any specific rule or course of action."

It's only a fallacy is there is no basis to assume that the action is UNLIKELY to result in bad unintended consequences.  This decision comes on the heels of other government actions tending to target citizens for their religious and/or political beliefs (e.g., the IRS targeting of conservative groups).  Many times the government action is taken in the name of some obscure law or regulation.  If you heard Harry Reid crowing about this decision on the floor of the Senate, you would understand the strong desire of some in government to walk all over the Constitution in order to right perceived wrongs in American culture.  I contend that there is a strong basis to assume that further more onerous infringements on First Amendment rights will follow this government agency ruling.